these idiots could have been more creative and up-to-date. the new dwindling resource is fresh water.
instead, they're regurgitating what the media and academia tells them. either to appease the idiotic common-folk or they're really just that daft.
No..No...No...The greedy idiots in the government should be more creative in finding alternative sources of energy!
shareThe earth is 70% water we will NEVER run out of water. No clean water you say? I don't know what era you live in but here in the 21st century we have water filtration systems.
Use your brain.
Well, oil will probaly run out in say 70-100 years... water, well... that can be avoided.
share70-100 years? Try 25-30, tops, if we can find the sources we know are there somewhere.
The more focus we have on dwindling oil and the need for alternative sources, the better. The oily powers at be are going to keep you dazed until it's "Oh *beep* hell" time, and don't you doubt it. I mean, it's common sense. If you were an oil magnate, would that not be your goal as well? It's not conspiracy, just common economic sense, from a greed standpoint. I find it strange that people are still so naïve to think that business people care about other things than money.
25-30 tops! ahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhahaahahah
Thats hysterical! You are delusional! You really think 100 Years of using oil has really used up most of earths oil supply that has been created over millions of years? Seriously?
All you have to do is take a look at the oil rig in the gulf of mexico calculate how many barrels of oil are getting spilled out per day multiply that by 40 days (given thats how long its been leaking)
Now take in consideration that, that one oil rig is in a place where the oil production isn't very high.
Now multiply that by 50 because that how many more off shore oil rigs there are off americas shore line.
After you do those calculations, its time to go to places that have heavy oil production and do that math.
Its time to stop listening to Al Gore and go do some research yourself.
When China, India and other third world and second world countries start to consume the same amount as oil as America per capita, this would be another 13 Americas or more worth of consumption. All the studies on use of oil does not take into account this. There are not enough refineries to handle this increase and they are not being built to handle this.
shareMaybe you should do your research. While there is much more oil in the ground, most of it is unreachable (either physically unreachable or in hostile territories.) So not every drop will be used, but we sure will run out of the supply. And it's not going to be all at once, either. Prepare for prices to rise much higher.
Required reading for theater patrons:
http://tinyurl.com/shutheeffup
[deleted]
Wow..... We've passed peak, and are using exponentially. Since it so useful, the bell curve can't really drop the price back to zero as oil is so useful and easily to use.
share"these idiots could have been more creative and up-to-date. the new dwindling resource is fresh water."
That's also been done - it was called Waterworld and starred Kevin Costner - there were also several movies that showed water as a cherished commodity (i.e. Dune, Solarbabies, etc.)
There are ways to convert sea water into fresh water that is drinkable, but to turn it into a mass production to help 6-7 billion people on this planet is still several years (even decades) away.
I don't think the "idiots" assumed that there would be no oil - just that any available oil would be too expensive for use by the general public for transport.
That seems like a reasonable assumption to me, provided we can get some sane form of carbon tax into place. The US public is essentially unique in not having reached a consensus about the truth of anthropogenic global warming. (US climate scientists reached the same consensus as their colleagues in other nations years ago.)
LOL... AGW has always been a joke. This was well known several years ago... I'm embarassed for you having made that post in late 2012, which was LONG after the frauds were exposed and the actual data proved them all wrong. (Actual *environmental* scientists were never as convinced as all the other "experts" who were speaking outside their professions.) How deluded do you have to be to believe in something as stupid as CO2 being a dangerous gas which can and should be regulated? That's some real quasi-religious indoctrination right there.
And now they are actually starting to change the subject to global COOLING again (as in the 1970s) and the consensus has tipped to the majority of scientists - yes, including those who do not work in the weather sciences - NOT believing any kind of climate change is manmade. This is common sense really, since Earth has been both colder and hotter in the last few centuries, before there was ANY industrialization, and much weather activity is caused by variations in the sun's activity.
The US public never bought in because sometimes their BS Meters actually work.
The Doctor is out. Far out.
No, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists support the AGW thesis: there is nothing embarassing about my position.
As for the so-called "frauds" of 2012, I assume you're writing about the storm in the (tea-party's) tea cup that centred around the research at the UEA. Sadly, for you - and for humans at large - the UEA was cleared of all wrong-doing. The whole story was a reminder of how careful "citizen scientists" and bloggers must be, when they try to investigate problems as complicated as global warming.
If you're talking about the alleged "pause" in global warming, my guess is that you've been looking at decadally averaged global temperatures, rather that ten year moving averages. "Skeptics" prefer the former, because such graphs make the temperature steps over the last few decades look as though they are decreasing, whereas the moving averages show little such evidence. That said, some slowing in the rate of warming is to be expected, because of the massive amount of energy required to warm oceans and to melt polar ice. These smaller, quantitative questions were addressed in the 2013 IPCC report.
As for talk about cooling, I haven't seen this suggested by any reputable climate scientists.
Do you really think that U.S. voters have better BS detectors than the citizens of other Western democracies, despite the well-documented, lower average levels of scientific literacy of U.S. people compared with other nations? (Where are their BS detectors when creationism periodically looms? And why are academics called "elites" as if it were a term of denigration?)
I think a better explanation is the almost uniquely U.S. system of industry-funded lobbyist groups, and the revolving door between between these groups and the upper levels of the U.S. civil service.
The U.S. also seems far happier about electing billionaires and their sons (even oil men) than comparable countries.
Finally, there is the old chestnut of campaign finance reform in the U.S.
These three factors, coupled with the very American idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion about any subject (which, of course, they are, provided others recognise that most people's opinions aren't worth much when it comes to arcane scientific topics, like climate science) is more than enough to explain why the U.S. is out of step with World scientific thinking about AGW.
[deleted]